Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-11-Speech-2-067"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000411.3.2-067"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is the second time I have spoken today and I should like to thank you for the highly constructive atmosphere in which this extremely detailed debate is being conducted. Because of the time available, I cannot, of course, comment on every intervention; however, I shall try to summarise the various points.
The Commission has also decided to set up a separate, internal ex-post audit service and I think that this will again demonstrate that the Commission takes the subject of improved financial control extremely seriously.
It has been clearly stated that the objective must be to reduce the error rate and I can only agree with this. But obviously I cannot reduce the error rates for the 1998 or 1999 budgets in retrospect. On the contrary, the objective is to take clear steps to achieve a better result in the future. That is the purpose of the action plan submitted by the Commission.
I should like in this respect to come back to what you said, Mr Pomés Ruiz, i.e. that the Commission should perhaps tell the committee which confidential reports it has submitted for the discharge procedure. I would be glad to comply with this request because I think it too helps clarify matters.
Mrs Langenhagen used her intervention to criticise the independent financial controller of the Union in connection with a report on the research centre in Geel. However, I should like to point out that to say that the financial controller is responsible for the plutonium incident in Geel is unfounded because she exercises no atomic supervision or any other type of supervision in Geel. But I have of course taken note of this accusation and have already started an administrative investigation in order to ascertain if there was a duty to provide information about the discussion of the report with the research centre and to pass the report on to the European Court of Auditors.
Mrs Ferreira, allow me to congratulate you on your first speech in Parliament and to thank you for your call for cooperation for the benefit of European politics.
I should like to end by saying that I do not see any confrontation in the postponement of the discharge; what I do see is that the European Parliament has exercised its right to demand information, set conditions and call on the Commission to take action, as it is entitled to do. I also see in the demands in the resolution support on the road towards a renewal of European politics and, in this respect, I really can promise you that we shall examine every point of this resolution very carefully and take it very seriously and we shall give you our reply on the information demanded and the steps taken without delay.
The question of access to information in order to be able to carry out the discharge procedure with the required degree of seriousness and with the documents which you need for the discharge process was central to various interventions.
I should like to point out once again in this context that the Commission has passed all the confidential reports requested to the rapporteur, or rather to the Committee on Budgetary Control. I must simply therefore ask, if we are being accused of withholding something, that you specify what has been withheld, because it is only on this basis that we can clear up misunderstandings or give you more information and this should not fail because of the Commission. There is in fact a contentious issue, which also needs to be regulated for the procedure for the future, and that is the question of the minutes of disciplinary proceedings or administrative investigations. This question has again been left out of the agreement on the grounds of valuable personal interests and I should like to point out that specific regulations also apply to Parliament in disciplinary proceedings.
I should also like to comment on Mr Blak’s question on the questionnaires. There has been a specific procedure for questionnaires in the past. The committee has now changed this, albeit informally. This resulted in the Commission’s confusion as to whether or not the questionnaire drafted by Mr Blak, but not confirmed by the committee, was an official questionnaire. The Commission then said that it would, of course, reply to the questionnaire, despite the fact that this point was not clarified. That again shows that it really does make sense here to lay down clear procedural rules. The Commission is really not interested in such misunderstandings or discussions; let us lay down clear procedures here so that our cooperation is complete and satisfies all concerned.
I should like to pick up on a point made by the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control because the question of why the list of old cases was not passed on was asked. I can only say in this context that the procedure changed with the legal basis for OLAF. The legal basis for OLAF clearly states that the director of OLAF is responsible for information on investigations or the results of investigations. I think we need to discuss this at some point together with the Committee on Budgetary Control and the director of OLAF because the Commission no longer has jurisdiction here. It has no more information than you do, on which investigations are at what stage. We have to discuss this with the director of OLAF. I shall, of course, pass on any requests but I cannot give you any information in lieu of the director of OLAF in this respect.
Another important point is the question of disciplinary procedure and I should like to comment on this. The Commission explained to Mr Van Hulten in its White Paper that it would reform this disciplinary procedure as it now stands. Nonetheless, our reform must remain within the bounds of the European Treaty. But what we can do is become involved in disciplinary procedures externally in order to make it clear that this is not some sort of closed shop but a regulated procedure conducted objectively in order to examine accusations.
A multitude of points were made but I should like to comment on the question of the discharge procedure. Mrs Morgan, I should like to thank you for your proposals concerning clarification of the discharge procedure, together with Mr Bourlanges, who referred to it in his point on the question of the interpretation of the current Treaty.
Mr Bösch, you made the comment that the Council did not unanimously recommend discharge for the Commission this year. In fact, it was the Netherlands which failed to carry the decision on the grounds that the Commission should draw up a clear timetable. Mr Mulder, you also returned to this point. I think we should discuss this at some point – including in the Committee on Budgetary Control – because although the procedure in the Netherlands is of course different, there are valuable points which we could perhaps adopt for the procedure in relation to the European budget.
Now to the question of reform and financial control, which was also raised in several comments, criticisms and demands. The Commission made it perfectly clear in its White Paper that one of the most important points was to reform financial control. Even if one of the suggestions made in it was that previously centralised, ex-ante financial control would be changed, abolished and decentralised, Mr Bösch, it also includes a suggestion which is stressed time and again by the independent experts and the Court of Auditors. It is not a question of reducing control but of making it more efficient. I firmly believe that this can only be done by making every official who handles European money responsible for ensuring that money is disbursed efficiently and correctly. No one must be able to hide behind centralised financial control."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples